It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Phoenix protester shot in dangly bits arrested after identifying himself to Reddit

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Montana

We don't know if he threw a rock also or not. He mentioned himself the rocks on the ground and that is why the teargas. You do know that just the act of defying a lawful order from the police is a crime? If you are with a violent group, you take your chances and should not whine about the outcome.




You don't have to follow unlawful orders though, and you can resist unlawful actions of the police.

You are assuming that their actions were lawful because you sided with them before all of the facts were in. They may not have been lawful, who knows?

All I know is that the government is overzealous and people are far too gung-ho about throwing around felony charges.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Think about this Muzzle, what if there were 3 or 4 dozen people kicking stuff at the LEOs at the same time. Now you have a big problem. If you let this guy off easy, people will take note of that. Next time there could be a mob of these agitators kicking sh** at the cops, fully expecting to get little or no punishment.

LEOs should never be attacked even with a cannister kicked at them. $$$$$ and a good lawyer will probably get the charges reduced, but even that hurts....and it should.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Of course not but you have to be the dumbest to committ a crime and basically get away with it but then go online and identify yourself. Kinda so stupid that maybe he is better off in jail as are the rest of us



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: muzzleflash

Of course not but you have to be the dumbest to committ a crime and basically get away with it but then go online and identify yourself. Kinda so stupid that maybe he is better off in jail as are the rest of us


Certainly not a member of the best and brightest club! But also shouldn't be a felon.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: muzzleflash

I missed this one somehow, so I'll re-ask the question that I asked before.

You say it's a minor infraction to send tear gas/CS back at police, because they have protective equipment on. Or at least that's the only argument you have that makes any sort of sense. Assault is assault, and it doesn't have to be "life threatening" to be assault. The whole "they just shot it at you" defense doesn't wash because he had to run forward to kick it.

So...running with that one solitary argument that makes some sort of sense, my question remains: law enforcement wears body armor on patrol. Should we treat it different when somebody shoots a cop in the vest than we treat it if they shoot a cop in the head?



Assault is a misdemeanor though.
But with the wave of a magic wand, it become a life ruining felony because they wore a badge?

Think of it this way.
I go punch grandma in the face - it's a misdemeanor.
She cannot defend herself, and what I did is especially heinous and unfair.
But it's just assault and battery.

I go shove a cop.
Felony? I just pushed him. He is trained and capable of fighting back.
Not a huge deal really - but it's a felony.

Therefore the system is broken and crimes of one degree are being construed as severe (when they are minor) - while a severe crime is construed as minor.

There is no good explanation for why this should be acceptable.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Are you really rationally saying that assaulting a police officer should not carry added charges? Really?!


edit on 25-8-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: muzzleflash

Think about this Muzzle, what if there were 3 or 4 dozen people kicking stuff at the LEOs at the same time. Now you have a big problem. If you let this guy off easy, people will take note of that. Next time there could be a mob of these agitators kicking sh** at the cops, fully expecting to get little or no punishment.

LEOs should never be attacked even with a cannister kicked at them. $$$$$ and a good lawyer will probably get the charges reduced, but even that hurts....and it should.




What if he doesn't have any $$$ or family to bail him out?

Well then he is totally screwed and he might as well hang himself in that prison cell he will rot in.

I can't believe we blindly accept any of this.
Rich people always get out of it while poor people, well, let's not talk about what happens to them.

This whole system is broken.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Or maybe we could just require the proper level of charges be made that suit the crime. Then plea bargains wouldn't even need be considered. And the prosecution could go forward with proper sentences handed down. Why even start the dog and pony show?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: muzzleflash

Are you really rationally saying that assaulting a police officer should not carry added charges? Really?



Are you really rationally saying that kicking a canister = 38years max triple felony?
Really?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You sided with a protestor who was clearly in a group that became violent. Which side do you suppose would be more likely to be honest? How do you know that person is being completely honest? Which is more likely, he embellishes the story to make himself sound blameless or he colored up the truth a bit?

Yes, I tend to believe the police first, knowing full well that most of them are just honest people doing a thankless job. I also know if he has no prior record, he won't do much if any time and it's jumping the gun to assume what will happen before the fact.



the right of the people peaceably to assemble,


That word "peaceably" in the Constitution is very clear and it's obvious why that is in fact the law. We have seen what happens when the police stand by and let things get out of control. Innocent people are hurt, killed and their property destroyed. I'm amazed they kept it as under control as they did.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: queenofswords

Or maybe we could just require the proper level of charges be made that suit the crime. Then plea bargains wouldn't even need be considered. And the prosecution could go forward with proper sentences handed down. Why even start the dog and pony show?


It's like no one understands that!

All we want is JUSTICE, FAIR n SQUARE.
Omg!



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




Think of it this way. I go punch grandma in the face - it's a misdemeanor. She cannot defend herself, and what I did is especially heinous and unfair. But it's just assault and battery.


In Arizona I believe that it would be considered a aggravated assault which is a felony.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: muzzleflash

You sided with a protestor who was clearly in a group that became violent. Which side do you suppose would be more likely to be honest? How do you know that person is being completely honest? Which is more likely, he embellishes the story to make himself sound blameless or he colored up the truth a bit?


I sided with giving people legitimate charges that fit the crime they committed.

That means I sided with the left now?
Is it an implicit admission that I support violence?

Because I think we should charge people appropriately?

This isn't us vs them.
It's just a common sense argument about why our system failed us and continues to do so.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
What strikes me as the hysterical part of this, if he does not out himself to get his 5 minutes of fame, the police probably do not even bother.

But they now have his confession, if the idiot had kept his mouth shut, odds are good he does not get arrested.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
They should let him go with a minor fine. The shot to the family jewels should be punishment enough. LOL



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




This isn't us vs them.


Then why did you use the term "right wingers"?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Its easier to not break the law at all.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: muzzleflash




Think of it this way. I go punch grandma in the face - it's a misdemeanor. She cannot defend herself, and what I did is especially heinous and unfair. But it's just assault and battery.


In Arizona I believe that it would be considered a aggravated assault which is a felony.


Only if it disfigures them or leaves them in a severe medical condition.
You can punch someone in Arizona (given they are not disfigured or hospitalized) and you will just get a misdemeanor.
Unless they are govt officials of course, then it's an extremely serious crime.

So basically hitting grandma (and not hospitalizing her) is no where near as serious a crime as shoving a cop. That doesn't make any sense.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: muzzleflash

Its easier to not break the law at all.


That's no excuse for govt tyranny as a response to lawbreaking.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: muzzleflash




Think of it this way. I go punch grandma in the face - it's a misdemeanor. She cannot defend herself, and what I did is especially heinous and unfair. But it's just assault and battery.


In Arizona I believe that it would be considered a aggravated assault which is a felony.


Yep. Again, it's in the code.



new topics




 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join